"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good."
Gandhi

Professor Schwartz,

Thank you for your thought provoking comments. Some of my thoughts on these
comments follow:

You cite the care some followers of the judeo.christian tradition show to their
companion animals as an example of ahimsa:

"I believe that to a large extent Judaism teaches Ahimsa. In some ways it goes
beyond it in the following sense. First, it teaches that if a person has a pet,
he or she must see that the pet is fed before sitting down to his or her own
meal."

The reasoning in this example of compassion also refers to one's live stock and
is both cruel and self-serving, for if you provide good care to the animals that
will eventually be consumed, it will result in a better meal. The slaughter of
an animal is not an act of compassion as it takes the life force of a living
being, that was not freely given.

Ahimsa includes all living beings in its circle of compassion. To state that the
concept of dominion contains examples that are an indicator of ahimsa implies a
lack understanding of the latter concept. Though some of those who follow the
judeo.christian tradition, keep dogs as companion animals, 4-5 million healthy
young dogs are killed every year in the USA simply because they are homeless.
This act of violence is condoned as it is labeled as compassionate. It would not
be considered an act of compassion to euthanize homeless humans. Once again the
contradiction of dominion has taken its toll on animals: care for some dogs,
kill others. The millions of dogs killed ever so compassionately when they
become an inconvenience are victims of the dominion model. This is not ahimsa.
The use of animals as scientific subjects does not prohibit the use of dogs and
they are in fact used as experimental subjects. Ahimsa does not allow for the
harming or killing of animals to benefit humans. Taking the life of a living
being is always considered an act of gratuitous violence.

Such is the nature of dominion. Its dispensation of compassion is conditional
always revolving around human need, rather than respect for the intrinsic worth
of an animals life. So that under some circumstances it is possible to care for
a dog and in others kill, harm and maim them for human benefit.

You also state: "...it is better to try to get Jews to apply their religious
teachings rather than changing them, especially when there are many Jewish
teaching that are very applicable."

As noted above with regard to dogs, the teachings are so piecemeal as to be
ineffective, some dogs are protected and cherished others are used as scientific
subjects and euthanized with mind numbing facility...

The following statement seems to imply that speaking about unconditional
compassion for animals in some way threatens the Jewish people with changing to
another religion.

"As you know, there is a long history of attempts to get Jews to change their
religions, and this is one reason that it is better to try to get Jews to apply
their religious teachings rather than changing them.."

Though Jews have had an unfortunate history of forced conversion, speaking about
compassion in terms of ahimsa is not an attempt to convert Jews to any other
religion and ought not be viewed as such.

You state: "Since I am trying to make changes in the Jewish community (others as
well, but at least initially the Jewish community), I have to, in effect, play
by the rules."

Playing by rules that have consistently resulted in the harming and slaughter of
animals will lead to more of the same. If we do not start to speak of rules that
truly embrace compassion, then we will be preaching the half-hearted compassion
of dominion for another 5000 years with the same devastating results.

It is a question of priorities: not stating that conditional compassion is cruel
as it sanctions the harm and slaughter of animals, for fear that the message may
offend the sensibilities of those who endorse this exploitation, puts the
concerns of those who allow for abuse over the right of an animal to remain free
from harm. Once again human benefit is valued over the worth of animal lives,
despite the fact that no harm would come from a message of unconditional
compassion to those who accept and endorse animal abuse as a necessary evil.

The following is a small sample of the positive results for animals when a model
of ahimsa is followed as compared to dominion:

India: Dissection banned for all high school students in every state
//USA: obligatory in every state difficult to get an exemption

India: Illegal to kill a dog for any reason other than extreme illness or trauma
//USA dogs used as research subjects and millions of healthy young homeless dogs
killed every year

India: All circus and zoo elephants freed and sent to sanctuaries
//USA: freeing not an issue. bull hooks approved approved for disciplining
captive elephants

India: monkeys tolerated by population, export of free roaming monkeys for
research banned as it would result in harm to them
//Israel: Monkeys bred throughout the world and in Israel for gruesome
neuroscience experiments in Israeli Universities.

India: pigeons are fed daily at jain temples by visitors, endorsed by the
religion
// USA: woman assaulted for feeding pigeons in NYC and 'pigeon shoots'

Feeding The Pigeons at a Jain Temple in Kerala, India

I would be interested in your response to the evidence that
animals do indeed fare better in ahimsa based cultures and communities.

Rather than respond to the abysmal track record of dominion, you try to justify
its use because people will not understand or will be threatened by ahimsa. If
we do not present a message of unconditional compassion now, then we are
catering to the needs of those who chose to harm animals and eliminating the
possibility of establishing a broader-based compassion. This stance will not
lead to progress. Putting human needs first is in essence the meaning of
dominion.

Using a model with such devastating results for animals in an effort to remain
sensitive to the needs of those who sanction their harm is to follow the
dominion model, as human need is once again placed above the value of the right
of an animal to simply live free from harm and slaughter.

When the Jains introduced ahimsa thousands of years ago it was an alien concept
and animal abuse was rampant, yet they had the courage to speak honestly about
the cruelty of harming animals to benefit humans. This integrity has reaped
substantial positive results for animals.

Finally, you state: "So, once again I urge you to challenge Jews to live up to
their highest teachings, rather than seeking to have them adopt something they
might think is alien to their religion...."

Compassion is not alien to the human soul, but it needs to be nurtured and
encouraged, not suppressed. All I am saying is that a model of unconditional
compassion for animals has shown to encourage compassion, while dominion, with
allowable harm and slaughter suppresses it. I believe unconditional compassion
would resonate with many if given half a chance, but this will not happen as
long as allowable harm and slaughter remain unchallenged.

I am not sure why you are urging me to challenge Jews to use a model of
compassion which falls short, as it is you who have a voice in that community
and I would hope the responsibility to use that voice to disavow allowable harm
and slaughter. It is not possible to pretend that dominion is compassionate,
when in effect the negative teachings so outweigh the positive as to trivialize
any gesture of compassion...

"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good."
Gandhi

I believe that to a large extent Judaism teaches Ahimsa. In some ways it goes
beyond it in the following sense. First, it teaches that if a person has a pet,
he or she must see that the pet is fed before sitting down to his or her own
meal. Also, if a person is kind to animals because he or she believes it is a
commandment from God, then he or she perhaps might be more diligent in going
further in that kindness or perhaps less likely to slip up.

Since I am trying to make changes in the Jewish community (others as well, but
at least initially the Jewish community), I have to, in effect, play by the
rules. I can't give people a chance to change the subject away from the
discrepancies between Jewish teachings and the realities of how animals are
treated.

Judaism does teach that only humans are created in God's image. But this should
mean that people should copy God's attributes of compassion and justice, so this
should be an argument for better treatment of animals and the earth.

I believe that Judaism teaches that animals should not be mistreated or killed
unless necessary for a basic human need that cannot be easily met in any other
way. So, for example, if a person was on an island and could only live if he or
she killed an animal and ate it, that would be permissible. But, I have been
arguing for years that people can be properly nourished on plant foods and
therefore there is no need to eat meat and thus Jews should be vegans.

The problem is that Jews, like people in most religions are finding ways to
avoid basic Jewish teachings. I have argued that the production and consumption
of meat and other animal products violate at least 6 basic Jewish mandates, and
trying to establish dialogues/debates on "Should Jews be Vegetarians?" But the
Jewish community has basically been avoiding the issue.

This is why I have been writing a book "They Stole My Religion" for many years,
often stopping for long periods because of the controversial nature of the
material, which will probably ostracize me from much of the Jewish community.
But, with the world now rapidly approaching an unprecedented climate catastrophe
which will be devastating for all life on the planet, I have decided that I must
complete the book and hope to do soon. In it I will make a strong case for
veganism and an end of abuses of animals, based on Jewish teachings.

So, once again I urge you to challenge Jews to live up to their highest
teachings, rather than seeking to have them adopt something they might think is
alien to their religion. As you know, there is a long history of attempts to get
Jews to change their religions, and this is one reason that it is better to try
to get Jews to apply their religious teachings rather than changing them,
especially when there are many Jewish teaching that are very applicable.

Best wishes,

Richard

On Mar 5, 2010, Ruth Eisenbud wrote:

Professor Schwartz,

Thank you for posing your thoughtful question:

"...what makes you think that people immersed in other religions are going to
suddenly become Jains, a religion they know almost nothing about?"

Ahimsa is not an alien concept to many in the animal rights movement, as I would
guess that a large number practise it in their daily life. It is the concept of
ahimsa that I am trying to present, not the Jain religion. When I argue about
the merits of ahimsa I cite numerous examples of how it has resulted in greater
benefits to animals in Indian culture where it is a value of the mainstream
religious tradition.

You are misinterpreting my intentions, as I do not suddenly expect people who
follow other faiths to become Jains.

Introducing the concept of ahimsa to the west in no way implies that anyone has
to become a Jain. I have stated this many times in my writing as to avoid
confusion. The Jain religion does not proselytize.

I use the Jain model as an example to show that it is possible to attain greater
compassion for animals when a model of unconditional compassion is taught by a
religion. In fact in India the whole of society has been influenced by the
concept of ahimsa without followers of other faiths becoming Jains.

You state: "Perhaps it might be better to argue that people should try to apply
the best aspects of their religions, including compassion"

While this sounds lovely and appears to be reasonable, it doesn't work. The
worst aspects contradict the best. The net result of this at best is to maintain
the current level of abuse, however time has shown that this is not the case and
with this model abuse and slaughter go up.

Wouldn't it be better to both speak directly in favor of the best aspects while
acknowledging and pointing out the cruelty of the worst aspects?

I have an old dog with diabetes, when I walk her so many people are sympathetic
and show a great deal of compassion. I often ask them if they are vegetarian,
and despite their innate expression of compassion, they say no. The mainstream
religions have found a way to convince these individuals that despite the
cruelty of slaughter, it is compassionate to exploit and slaughter animals, if
it is done for human need. It is not possible to have it both ways, as dominion
implies. One is either compassionate and carefully avoids ab(use) of animals or
one conditionally allows for their slaughter and ab(use), while paying lip
service to compassion.

If the standards of dominion were applied to humans, they would be soundly
condemned as it is understood that allowable slaughter and abuse will not lead
to greater compassion. Would it not be better to state unequivocally that
animals are worthy of the same respect shown to humans?

The measures of compassion applied to animals destined for slaughter are a thin
veneer in view of the horrors of slaughter and result in assuaging guilt, rather
than achieving compassion. Often when a small measure of compassion, such as
removing veal calves from their crates results in increased sales. People want
to believe they are compassionate and their concerns of cruelty are placated by
these gestures.

Would it not be better to speak directly to the innate compassion that so many
have and give them the whole truth, so they can make an informed and truly
compassionate choice?

It is a psychological truism that it is not possible to solve a problem until
the underlying root causes are addressed. Half-hearted compassion alongside of
benevolent abuse does not deliver a message of compassion, rather it provides
loopholes, so that abuse is justified while appearing compassionate...

When you cite examples of compassion in the Bible, yet choose not to criticize
the passages which allow for harm, it results in confusion, because the passages
allowing for harm negate the gestures of compassion. It is this confusion that
has resulted in so much abuse made 'legitimate' by religious approval.

Though I have political opinions about human on human violence as in the
examples you cite about democracy, my main focus is on the terrible plight of
animals, as I believe that the harm so easily justified to animals is also at
the root of much human suffering. Once you sanction the ab(use) of animals it is
not a great leap to harm and kill humans.

I am not alone in this belief:

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who
sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love." Pythagoras,
mathematician

This statement speaks to the spiritual harm that man does to himself while
allowing and indulging in the slaughter and abuse of animals. This understanding
is at the root of the Jain religion. There is no reason it cannot be expressed
by other faiths as well.

If you follow ahimsa in your personal life and lend support to dominion in your
public life, than the discrepancy is perplexing. Is there a reason that you do
not support unconditional compassion for animals equivalent to that granted to
humans in your public statements? Implied legitimacy to the dominion model helps
preserve it and therefore the ever increasing abuse of animals is not
challenged....

Do you also feel that democracy has two faces, because democratic US has backed
several dictators when it was in our interest.

If someone from a country claiming his/her country represented compassion,
justice, democracy, harmony and all good things argued that you should come to
his/her country because the US massacred Indians, enslaved and brutally treated
Blacks, prevented women from voting for many years, backed dictators, unjustly
attacked Vietnam and Iraq, and backed several dictators, would you move to that
country, or would you feel as an American you should stay here and try to use
democracy and other positives in the US to try to make our country better

If the latter, what makes you think that people immersed in other religions are
going to suddenly become jains, a religion they know almost nothing about?
Perhaps it might be better to argue that people should try to apply the best
aspects of their religions, including compassion

All the best,

Richard

On Mar 3, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Ruth Eisenbud wrote:

Slavica,

This is why I speak out against the concept of dominion. Dominion has two faces.
It allows for the harm and slaughter of animals, as it speaks of compassion for
them. The two messages are incompatible. There is no compassion when animal
lives are so devalued that their slaughter, an act of cruelty and abuse, is
condoned in the name of human necessity.

It will not help to target one individual, as western culture is deeply rooted
in the judeo.christian tradition and as such follows the model of dominion. This
man is in the majority and his views are upheld by western society.

Furthermore threatening a human being is not an act of compassion and will lead
to more violence both to animals and humans.

Ahimsa Parmo Dharma (Non-violence for all beings is the primary principle, Jain
sutra)